UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2013

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2013 Conservative Party Conference Speech

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to the 2013 Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve been in this job a year now. When I was given it I said that to be responsible for the NHS was the greatest privilege of my life, and so it has been. It has been a wonderful year in a remarkable organisation.

    And I’ve been very lucky to have a great team of ministers. Norman Lamb, Dan Poulter, Anna Soubry and Freddie Howe have been terrific. Please put your hands together to thank them for their work.

    I actually had an NHS operation on my head last year. You might say there are lots of things wrong with my head, but this was only minor surgery. I was lying on my back in the operating theatre. The surgeon had his scalpel out ready to start when one of the nurses looked at me and said “By the way Mr Hunt, what is it you do for a living?”

    I froze. In fact my mind flashed back to when Ronald Reagan was shot. As he was wheeled into the operating theatre, he looked up at the doctors and said “I hope you’re all Republicans”.

    I go out onto the frontline most weeks. Not just visiting, but actually rolling up my sleeves, putting on the uniform and mucking in. I have learned more from doing this than I’ve ever found out sitting behind a ministerial desk.

    I have done the tea round in a Worthing ward; washed down emergency beds in Watford; answered the phone in a busy London GP surgery; even done a nursing round in Salford. You’ll be relieved to hear that no one has asked me to perform surgery yet.

    I’m pleased to say staff are never slow to say when my efforts don’t meet their high standards. Disconcertingly the usual reaction I get is “you’re much nicer than we thought you’d be.”

    Going on the frontline you meet some remarkable people.

    People like the inspirational Elaine and her team at Salford, running one of the safest hospitals in the country right here on our doorstep.

    Or a GP I met in Feltham who had a patient who was diagnosed with a terminal illness.

    He went out of his way to visit the patient every day after he finished at work. Then one day he arrived at the patient’s home and was upset to see he’d just died. So he decided to wash and clean him. As he told the patient’s wife “I want this man to go out of his home with dignity.”

    To him that was just his job. To me, it’s the NHS. There for us and our families, no matter how old, how frail, how hard-up…treating everyone with dignity, respect and compassion.

    That incredible miracle of human nature that happens when one human being is confronted with another who’s unwell. However tired, stressed or busy they feel, they tap into hidden reserves of strength and compassion to comfort and help.

    I don’t come from a health background. I ran my own business. I’ve worked in Japan and set up a charity in Africa. But in all of the places I’ve worked I have never seen people strive harder than the doctors, nurses and professionals in our NHS. To all of you who work in the NHS, I want to say thank you for what you do for our country. You make us proud.

    CONFRONTING FAILURE

    But if you love an institution, you are even more determined to sort out any problems.

    Which is why every week I make sure I see personally some of the letters that come in about things that have gone wrong.

    Recently I read about someone who lost their wife because her records were mixed up and she was given the wrong medicine. Someone else wrote in who had lost their three year old son because the ambulance didn’t get there in time. Someone else had been brushed off when he complained that his father was left lying naked in a public ward.

    These are not typical of our NHS or its staff. And things do go wrong sometimes despite everyone’s best efforts.

    But the duty of of a Health Secretary, however painful, is to look into these problems, accept responsibility and do what it takes to stop them being repeated.

    Which is what happened this year.

    Not just at Mid Staffs hospital where so many terrible things happened. But at 11 more hospitals we had to put into special measures all in one go in July, something that has never happened before in the NHS.

    So this year we appointed for the first time a Chief Inspector of Hospitals. Modelled on the tough regulatory regime that Ofsted use for our schools, this is someone whose job is to speak out, without fear or favour, about the standards in our hospitals. The nation’s whistleblower in chief.

    What Professor Sir Mike Richards finds will not always be comfortable. But his tough new inspections, which started two weeks ago, will mean everyone for the first time will know the answers to some simple questions: how good is my local hospital? Is it safe? Does it have enough staff? Does it put patients first?

    I’m sure in most places the answer will be positive. But if it isn’t we need to know and then things will change.

    DENIAL

    It sounds simple.

    But many of these problems should never have happened in the first place.

    Let’s be clear – in a huge system like the NHS, things go wrong and mistakes are made whichever party is in power.

    But tragically under Labour the system did everything it could to cover up these mistakes.

    Giving Morecambe Bay the all-clear in April 2010 despite the deaths of 16 babies. That was wrong.

    Giving the all-clear to Basildon and Tameside Hospitals in late 2009 just weeks before stories emerged of blood-spattered wards, patients being treated on trollies and elderly patients left alone unable to eat. That was wrong.

    Refusing 81 requests, as their ministers did, for a public inquiry into Mid Staffs. That was wrong.

    Forcing a group of grieving families to wait in the snow, wind and rain because the health secretary refused to grant them even one meeting. That too was wrong.

    As the country’s leading expert on hospital death rates Professor Sir Brian Jarman says, the Department of Health was a ‘denial machine.’

    Indeed the Chair of the CQC talked of the pressure she was put under by a minister in that government not to speak out.

    That person, Barbara Young, is no Conservative – in fact she is a Labour peer. So even their own people felt desperately uncomfortable.

    To those Labour people who hated what was happening on their watch, I have this to say: you were right.

    Covering things up is not only worse for those who suffer. It means the problem doesn’t get fixed and may be repeated.

    And then it’s not the rich who suffer, it is the most vulnerable. Disabled children. Older people with dementia. Those with no relatives to kick up a fuss. Ordinary people who put their faith in the system, only to find the system wasn’t there for them when they needed it.

    Labour betrayed the very people they claim to stand up for.

    But what is even more worrying is they are still in complete denial about what happened.

    In his speech last week, Andy Burnham didn’t find time to mention Mid Staffs once. Not once. In the year of the Francis Inquiry, Morecambe Bay, the Keogh report, a brand new inspection regime – none of that was important enough to merit even a single mention by Labour’s health spokesman.

    But he did mention privatisation 13 times. They want the whole health debate to be about so-called privatisation.

    But use of the independent sector to bring waiting times down and raise standards is not privatisation. It’s what Tony Blair, Alan Milburn, Patricia Hewitt, John Reid and Alan Johnson all believed was right for patients.

    Ed Miliband now says that was wrong. But no ideology, left or right, should ever trump the needs of patients.

    Because for patients it’s not public vs private. It’s good care vs bad care. And we’ll stamp out bad care wherever we find it – public sector, private sector, hospitals, care homes, surgeries – and never cover it up.

    So today I can announce a major reform that will stop Labour or any government ever trying to cover up poor care.

    We will legislate in the Care Bill to give the CQC statutory independence, rather like the Bank of England has over interest rates, so ministers can never again lean on it to suppress bad news.

    The care of our NHS patients is too important for political meddling – and our new legislation will make sure that ministers always put patients first.

    OUR RECORD

    As Conservatives we show our commitment to the NHS by what we do as well as what we say.

    And we have a record to be proud of.

    We set up the Cancer Drugs Fund which has helped 34,000 people so far.

    This week David Cameron has announced it will continue for another two years. Even better would be if Labour in Wales agreed to introduce it there so we stopped the obscenity of Welsh cancer sufferers renting houses in England in order to get the cancer drugs they need to save their lives.

    And unlike in Wales, this Government made the difficult choice to protect the NHS budget in the face of unprecedented financial pressure.

    And look at what we’ve done with that budget. On basically the same budget in real-terms, the NHS is doing 800,000 more operations every year than Labour’s last year in office AND long waits have actually come down.

    In 2010, 18,000 people waited more than a year, now it’s less than 400.  And not just that:

    Four million more outpatient appointments every single year;

    MRSA rates halved;

    Mixed sex wards virtually gone.

    8000 fewer managers and 4000 more doctors

    All thanks to our Prime Minister David Cameron, whose personal commitment to the NHS has shone like a beacon from the moment he became our leader.

    OUR VISION

    But if we are to prepare the NHS for the future we cannot stop there.

    Andrew Lansley courageously put health budgets and decisions on treatment back into the hands of local doctors – and we are seeing huge innovation as a result.

    And if there’s one big change we need more than anything, it’s to transform the care older people receive outside hospital.

    It’s true for all of us, but especially true for older people that prevention is better than cure. Avoiding that fall down the stairs, stopping an infection going septic, halting the onset of dementia – these are things that give people happy, healthy last years to spend at home surrounded by family and friends. They also saves the NHS money.

    To do this, we need to rediscover the ideal of family doctors. Making GPs more accessible for people at work, as today’s announcement about piloting 8 till 8 7 day opening will do.

    But also giving GPs the time and space to care proactively for vulnerable older people on their lists, keeping tabs on them and helping them stay well longer.

    The last government’s GP contract changes in 2004 abolished named GPs – and in doing so destroyed the personal link between patients and their GPs. Trust between doctor and patient is at the heart of what NHS professionalism stands for – and we should never have allowed that GP contract to undermine it.

    So from next April we will be reversing that mistake by introducing a named GP, responsible for proactive care for all vulnerable older people.

    Someone to be their champion in the integrated health and social care system that we will be implementing from April following George Osborne’s announcement in July.

    Restoring the link between doctor and patient for millions.  And joining up a system which has allowed too many people to fall between the cracks.

    And for those who need residential care, we’ll do something else. We’ll stop them ever having to sell the home they have worked hard for all their life to pay for the cost of it.

    Our Dilnot reforms will make us one of the first countries in the world where people make proper provision for their care costs just as they do for their pension.

    CONCLUSION

    These are big and difficult challenges.

    But the party that really cares about the NHS is the party prepared to take tough decisions – so the NHS can be the pride of our children and grandchildren just as it is our pride too.

    No to the blind pursuit of targets – but yes to putting patients first.

    No to cover ups and ignoring problems – but yes to transparency and sorting them out.

    No to pessimism about the future of the NHS – yes to pride and confidence that with courage and commitment it can go from strength to strength.

    That’s our Conservative NHS: the doctors party, the nurses party and – yes – the patients party.

    Conference we have always been the party of aspiration.  It has always been our dream to make Britain the best country in the world for young people to grow up in.

    But we’re also the party that believes in respect for older people.  So as we face the challenge of an ageing population, under our stewardship of the NHS we can do something else too: we can make Britain the best country not just the best country in the world to grow up in, but the best country to grow old in too.

    Let’s stop at nothing to make that happen.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2013 Speech to the National Conservative Convention

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, to the 2013 National Conservative Convention on 19th March 2013.

    When I became Health Secretary in September I said the job was the biggest privilege of my life.

    That’s because the NHS is one of our most cherished institutions.

    We can be proud that for 65 years our health service has ensured that everyone is entitled to treatment regardless of their background or income.

    Over the last six months I have visited hospitals, surgeries and care homes across the country.

    I have seen world-leading clinical practice, innovative use of technology and wonderful care from the dedicated doctors, nurses and healthcare assistants who look after 3 million people every week.

    This Conservative-led government has shown our commitment to the NHS time and time again: by our protection of the NHS budget; by putting doctors and nurses in charge of two thirds of the budget; by funding the Dilnot proposals so people never have to sell their house to pay for social care; and by fighting to make sure vulnerable older patients are always treated with dignity and respect.

    And we can be proud that our policies are making a real difference to people’s lives: on broadly the same budget as the last government, we are doing 400,000 more operations, 1 million more diagnostic tests and three million more outpatient appointments every year than happened under Labour; and 28,000 patients have benefited from the Cancer Drugs Fund they refused to set up.

    Although I am proud of those achievements, I am even prouder of the contribution made by the extraordinary staff who work on the NHS frontline.

    Let me give you one example: A & E departments now see 1 million more people every single year than when we took office.

    I know the incredible pressures the doctors, nurses and healthcare assistants who work there are facing to deal with this surge in demand.

    24/7 they do an extraordinary job and on behalf of everyone here I want to thank them for their remarkable dedication and commitment.

    But it’s my job as Health Secretary not just to praise the best of the NHS but also to be honest about the failures.

    If you care about something you don’t try to sweep problems under the carpet – you expose them, sort them out and make things better.

    And by criticising us when we do that, Labour show extraordinary complacency about the treatment suffered by some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

    As Conservatives, our instinct is to stand up for the individual. And that applies to the NHS.

    We must never allow the needs of an institution to become more important than the needs of the patients it was set up to serve.

    That’s why Andrew Lansley was so right to set up a public inquiry into what happened at Mid Staffs Hospital, something Labour refused 81 requests to do.

    And we should never forget what they allowed to happen on their watch:

    Patients left unwashed for days, sometimes in sheets soiled with urine and excrement;

    Relatives having to take bedsheets home to wash because the hospital wouldn’t;

    Patients with dementia going hungry with their meals sitting right in front of them because no one realised or cared that they were unable to feed themselves.

    Things that make your stomach turn. And we must never allow our love of the NHS to dent our determination to hold systems and individuals to account.

    So, where does that accountability lie? Most recent focus has been on Sir David Nicholson.

    As a manager in a system that failed to spot and rectify the appalling cases at mid Staffs, he has been held accountable in both parliament and the media.

    But he also led the campaign to bring down hospital waiting times and MRSA rates and we should not delude ourselves that Mid Staffs was all down to one man.

    Others have far greater responsibility.

    Like the board of the Trust, whose members astonishingly seem to have melted into thin air, some moving to other jobs in the system and others with generous payoffs.

    We need to restore accountability to hospital boards. That includes an end to gagging clauses – which I announced earlier this week.

    And we must look at measures to make boards criminally liable if they deliberately manipulate key patient data like mortality rates or waiting times.

    We need openness and transparency and there should be no hiding place for those who hide the truth and fiddle the figures.

    The Francis report rightly says that Ministers were not personally responsible for what happened at Mid Staffs.

    No minister of any party would have sanctioned or condoned what happened.

    But we also know from the report that the pursuit of targets at any cost was one of the central drivers of what went wrong.

    And it is Ministers who are ultimately responsible for the culture of the NHS. During this period a culture of neglect was allowed to take root in which the system became more important than the individual.

    The pursuit of targets stopped frontline staff treating people with dignity and compassion and betrayed what all of us believe the NHS is there to do.

    Of course there is a role for targets, whether in A & E or for waiting times.

    But not at any cost.

    And Labour Ministers made three huge policy mistakes which contributed to the culture of neglect we are now putting right.

    First, they failed to put in place safeguards to stop weak, inexperienced or bad managers pursuing not just bureaucratic targets, but targets at any cost.

    This is exactly what happened at Mid Staffs, where patient safety and care was compromised in a blind rush to achieve Foundation Trust status.

    Secondly, they failed to set up proper, independent, peer-led inspections of hospital quality and safety which told the public how safe and how good their local hospital was.

    And thirdly, they failed to spot clear warnings when things went wrong.

    The Francis Report outlines around 50 warning signs – so why did Ministers not act sooner?

    If those warnings were not brought to the attention of Ministers, why did they not create a system where they were?

    Instead there was a climate where NHS employees who spoke out about poor care were ignored, intimidated or bullied.

    Until we have a proper apology from Labour for those catastrophic policy mistakes, no one will believe they would not make the same errors of judgment again.

    This Conservative-led Government is absolutely clear about the steps we need to take to ensure accountability, compassionate care and respect for patients, particularly older people, are embedded in every corner of the NHS.

    These include a proper independent peer-review inspection regime led by a new Chief Inspector of Hospitals that won’t just look at targets, but also make judgements about whether hospitals are putting patients first.

    And it isn’t just about failure – we must recognise excellence.

    When Ofsted started recognising outstanding schools, we saw a new breed of ‘superheads’across the education system.

    We need the same in the NHS – so that our best leaders can help turn around failing hospitals.

    We also need a single failure regime where the suspension of the Board can be triggered by failures in care as well as failures in finance.

    And we will promote a patient-centred culture through the introduction of the Friends and Family Test.

    This will ask every NHS hospital inpatient whether they would recommend the care they received to a friend or family member.

    It will ask NHS staff whether they would want their own family treated in their own hospital.

    Implementing these changes will be a huge challenge.

    But in the end we are doing what Labour should have done but failed to do.

    The party that claims to speak for the vulnerable betrayed those very same people.

    And they betrayed the vast majority of doctors and nurses who want nothing more than to express the innate decency and compassion that made them give their lives to the NHS in the first place.

    And once again it falls to us, the Conservatives, to deliver that vision.

    And make sure that throughout our NHS no individual is too small, too unimportant, or too irrelevant to matter.

    That is our mission – let nothing stand in our way.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2013 Speech on Innovation

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, on 13th March 2013.

    In 1953, when the NHS was just five years old, two men named Smith took a flight from LA to New York. They started chatting.

    One Mr Smith was the head of American Airlines. He was having a nightmare coping with the explosion in demand for airline travel.

    Back then it could take 3 hours to book a single ticket. They were dependent on the amount of work that 8 people huddling around a single rolodex could manage and they had reached their limit. Mr Smith was desperate.

    The other Mr Smith worked for IBM.

    That chance encounter transformed the industry.

    It led to a new computer system that allowed any travel agent anywhere in the country to know which seats were available on any flight, book and issue a ticket all in a matter of minutes.

    The implications were massive. Flying went mass-market – and American Airlines became one of the most successful airlines in the world. And we are still using the same system 60 years later – with the internet allowing us all to become our own travel agents.

    But think how history would have been different if the man from IBM had been sitting next to a Mr Smith from the NHS.

    What they introduced to the airline industry 60 years ago, we still haven’t done for health and social care today. While they innovated, we stagnated. The revolution that has transformed so much of our daily lives is only just starting to touch healthcare.

    Today I want to talk about the importance of innovation, of thinking differently and of finally harnessing the power of technology for the improvement of patient care and patient experience.

    The NHS today

    Very recently, the Francis Report into the appalling abuses of care at Stafford Hospital highlighted one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS. The need not only for high quality treatment, but for genuinely patient centred care.

    I am clear that our response to that report must be about getting the culture and values right in the modern NHS as about regulation and systems.

    In the end, that boils down to basic human interaction, to the care and compassion that is at the heart of what the NHS stands for. That is at the heart of the reason why so many people – our great doctors and nurses – dedicate themselves to the care of others.

    If we are to give them the time and space to deliver on those core NHS values, if we are serious about putting patients in the driving seat, then we need to embrace the time-saving efficiency and productivity that technology and innovation can unleash.

    We also need to recognise the improvements in patient safety that technology makes possible. Whether real time information on hospital mortality rates, comparative data on surgery survival rates or the simple availability to a doctor of a patient’s prescribing history before medication is administered – all should make closer the zero-harm NHS that is such a priority in the wake of Mid Staffs.

    Let’s be clear though: technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself. But if we ignore what it makes possible, we ignore the biggest single opportunity in front of us to transform the delivery of healthcare away from a medical model into a patient and person-centred approach.

    Patient Records

    One thing that, more than anything else, will drive innovation is electronic patient records.

    Paper records can only be in one place at a time, only seen by one person at a time. So they’re no use to a patient on holiday in Gloucester if his file is in a Godalming GP surgery.

    Or to an ambulance driver picking up a frail elderly woman in an emergency who, if he had her notes, could see she was a diabetic with a heart condition who had a fall last month.

    They’re no use to a hospital doctor who might not be aware of a patient’s other medication and prescribe drugs incorrectly – potentially lethally – because the notes have got lost.

    Unaware of a patient’s full history, complications arise in surgery.

    Diagnostic tests are repeated unnecessarily.

    And patients find themselves having to repeat their medical history over and over again, sometimes several times on the same day in the same hospital.

    But with an electronic record, all sorts of things are possible.

    Which is why I have taken what Sir Humphrey would call the ‘brave’ decision to ask the NHS to go paperless by 2018. And to acknowledge explicitly that the last government was right to see the potential of electronic records but tragically wrong in the way it tried to implement them.

    We will learn the right lessons – in particular avoiding top down Whitehall driven solutions in favour of locally determined solutions which work to national standards.

    Global best practice

    Many of the organisations here today offer new ways of using that information to improve care.

    Whether it’s doctors and nurses being able to access the right information, giving patients control over their own care, or enabling vast amounts of anonymised data to be used to further research into new drugs and treatments. The potential for fully electronic records is huge and is about to be realised.

    In Denmark, people can see all their hospital records online, and this year will be able to see their GP records too.

    In America, military veterans, who have their own healthcare system not unlike the NHS, can download their own health records. Something that almost 20,000 veterans do every month.

    In Sweden, over 85% of prescriptions are transferred from doctor to pharmacy online.

    We have great things happening here in the UK too – like King’s College Hospital on track to become paperless this year, and where nurses use iPod Touches to record and monitor a patient’s vital signs at the bedside.

    Or Maudsley Hospital’s MyHealthBox, the first time anwhere mental health patients have been given online access to their hospital and GP records.

    Or Newham University Hospital that has reduced missed appointments by 11% through use of Skype for diabetic outpatient appointments.

    But, we need to go much further, much faster. And we should not underestimate the size of the prize. With a paperless NHS, we may well be the largest fully online health economy in the world – with massive implications for improved patient safety, genuine patient empowerment and self-management as well as scientific research.

    Announcements: Johnson and Johnson

    Britain has a global reputation for research. We have world-leading universities and some of the greatest scientific minds. We have well established, high quality R&D, manufacturing and supply chain expertise. And, of course, we have the NHS.

    This all makes the UK a natural focus for global investment in innovation and the life sciences.

    And with a global healthcare market worth around 6.5 trillion dollars, the potential value to the UK in terms of economic growth and development is enormous.

    So I’m delighted to announce one such investment today.

    Johnson & Johnson’s Innovation Centre, here in London, will spearhead a multi-mullion pound drive to seek out and develop some of the ‘golden discoveries’ being made as we speak.

    They will support and develop promising new breakthroughs in our universities, our SMEs, our research councils and our big research charities.

    Johnson & Johnson’s Chief Scientific Officer, Paul Stoffels, said, this “is part of [their] broader innovation strategy to advance human health through collaboration with the world’s leading scientists and entrepreneurs.”

    And they’re doing it right here in England, where they have access to the finest health service and the finest people in the world.

    Unlike the big investments of the past, this isn’t about vast sums spent on shiny new offices and laboritories, it’s about focussing investment in new ideas, fresh thinking and new products.

    Being flexible and moving fast.  Just like many of the small companies here at Expo.

    NHS Commissioning Board App Library

    For as well as the big giants who push forward the bounds of innovation, we also need the small, disruptive companies. Often close to their customers, often led by people fresh from the coalface of NHS care, outside the traditional structures they bring energy and fresh thinking to age-old problems.

    So to help harness what they can offer the NHS Commissioning Board have today launched the Health App Library. Aimed initially at the public, it will play host to new mobile phone apps developed by companies large and small that can help to improve healthcare in myriad ways.

    These apps will do everything from helping people to get trusted information on their condition or to find relevant clinical trials, to making it easy for patients to create and manage their own care plans with their doctor using their own medical records.

    As the father of a one year old daughter, I am particularly interested in the e-Red Book, allowing parents to keep accurate and up to date records of their child’s early development online.

    But you will find many other apps in the Library, all with the knowledge that they are clinically safe.

    Innovation, excellence and Strategic Development (IESD) Fund

    Finally I can today announce the government is helping small groups – community groups, social enterprises – to play their role in improving care through the Innovation, Excellence and Strategic Development Fund. Today, a further 49 with benefit from grants totalling £5.5 million.

    This will cover a wide range of innovations, from tailored online psychological support for people with skin conditions, to phone apps to help people with disabilities gain greater independence, and support for children and young people to access and take control of their own mental health services online or through their phones.

    Conclusion

    Expo showcases why I am so optimistic about the future of health and social care. Creative people bringing new ideas, new perspectives, new approaches.

    It is the opposite of the old top-down, command and control NHS. It shows the future.

    A future of an NHS freed from the shackles of top-down bureaucracy where our excellent doctors and nurses can quickly find the solutions that work for them and their patients. Bringing speed and creativity to wards and consulting rooms across the country.

    Technology is a big part of this. Not a holy grail or silver bullet. But a way of turning the pyramid upside-down, so the NHS is led by the people it was set up to serve – its patients.

    Bill Gates said, “Never before in history has innovation offered promise of so much to so many in so short a time”.

    When it comes to taking advantage of that promise of what innovation, let’s put healthcare at the front of the queue. Thank you.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2013 Speech at the Policy Exchange

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of a speech made by the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, to the Policy Exchange on 16th January 2013.

    In 1953, when the NHS was just five years old, two men named Smith took a flight from LA to New York.  They started chatting.

    One Mr Smith was the head of American Airlines.  He was having a nightmare coping with the explosion in demand for airline travel.

    Back then it could take 3 hours to book a single ticket.  They were dependent on the amount of work that 8 people huddling around a single rolodex could manage and they had reached their limit.  Mr Smith was desperate.

    The other Mr Smith worked for IBM.

    That chance encounter transformed the industry.

    It led to a new computer system that allowed any travel agent anywhere in the country to know which seats were available on any flight, book and issue a ticket all in a matter of minutes.

    The implications were massive. Flying went mass-market – and American Airlines became one of the most successful airlines in the world. And we are still using the same system 60 years later – with the internet allowing us all to become our own travel agents.

    But think how history would have been different if the man from IBM had been sitting next to a Mr Smith from the NHS.

    What they introduced to the airline industry 60 years ago, we still haven’t done for health and social care today.  The revolution that has transformed so much of our daily lives has only just started to touch healthcare.

    Today I want to talk about why we need to embrace that revolution with enthusiasm – but also the pitfalls if we get it wrong.

    The NHS today

    Right now, one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS is the Francis Report about the appalling abuses of care at Stafford Hospital, shortly due to land on my desk.

    I am clear that our response to that report must be about getting the culture and values right in the modern NHS as about regulation and systems.

    Technology is not the answer to this. It can never replace human interaction, nor the care and compassion that must be at the heart of what the NHS stands for.

    But today, I want to argue that it does have a role to play if we are to give doctors and nurses the time and space to deliver on those core NHS values.

    The clearest example of this is patient records.

    Because they are mainly paper-based, they can only be in one place at a time, only seen by one person at a time.

    So they’re no use to a patient on holiday in Gloucester if his file is in a GP surgery in Godalming.

    Or to a paramedic picking up a frail elderly woman in an emergency who, if he had her notes, could see she was a diabetic with a heart condition who had a fall last month.

    They’re no use to a hospital doctor who might not be aware of a patient’s other medication and prescribe drugs incorrectly – potentially lethally – because the notes have got lost.

    Unaware of a patient’s full history, complications arise in surgery.

    Diagnostic tests are repeated unnecessarily.

    And patients find themselves having to repeat their medical history over and over again, sometimes several times on the same day in the same hospital.

    International comparisons

    Other countries are making great strides.

    In Denmark, people can see all their hospital records online, and this year will be able to see their GP records too.

    In America, military veterans, who have their own healthcare system not unlike the NHS, can download their own health records.  Something that almost 20,000 veterans do every month.

    In Sweden, over 85% of prescriptions are transferred from doctor to pharmacy online.

    Here in the UK we too have some interesting pioneers.

    King’s College Hospital, for example, is on track to become fully paperless by the end of this year.

    The drive comes from the clinicians who demand to have the right information in the right place at the right time.  They’ve introduced electronic prescribing, and nurses use an iPod Touch to record and monitor a patient’s vital signs at the bedside.

    Maudsley Hospital’s ‘MyHealthLocker’, gives their patients online access to their hospital and GP records, a world’s first in mental health.  They can also feed back on their care plan, helping them to take control of their own healthcare.

    And Newham University Hospital is piloting using Skype for diabetic outpatient appointments that don’t require an examination.

    Missed appointments are down by 11%, patients don’t have to travel and the quality of care is improved.

    But today I want to argue that we need to go much further, much faster.

    So today I am setting a new ambition for the NHS.

    I want it to become paperless by 2018. The most modern digital health service in the world.

    Patients will be at the heart of this change – which means allowing for those unable or unwilling to engage in technology.

    But between the NHS and social care, there must be total commitment to ensuring that interaction is paperless, and that, with a patient’s consent, their full medical history can follow them around the system seamlessly.

    Challenges

    This will be a profound change with huge impact, impossible to underestimate. And with profound change come profound challenges.

    First, unsurprisingly, is money.

    If Labour failed to do this with their billions, how can we hope to do it on a much more limited budget?

    We shouldn’t forget that local hospitals and local GP practices spend their own money on technology all the time.  We just need a much more ambitious vision as to how to make that money and that investment count.

    Every NHS organisation, including all 266 NHS trusts, has a major incentive to do this because the savings are so enormous – £4.4 billion annually according to today’s PWC report – that money, released to spend on better care, can go a long way towards helping them deliver health services sustainably in a time of real financial pressure.

    Second, there is the objection that this should not be a priority because we want nurses talking to patients not looking at iPads.

    But how many times do we see a nurse station in a ward with nurses unable to catch your eye because their heads are buried in paperwork?  Proper investment in technology means more contact time with patients – which is why the Prime Minister announced a £100m fund to help nurses take advantage of it.

    Then there is the objection that patients don’t want technology. It’s true that only 3% of people book GP appointments online.  But 29% say they want to.

    Before online banking became available, were customers marching in the streets, demanding that banks put their accounts online?  Of course not.  But that didn’t stop people going online in droves – with 80% of us, including a third of pensioners, now banking online .  Never let it be said that this is only something of interest to younger generations.

    Then there is the critical issue of data security, which Fiona Caldicott is reviewing right now. Clearly we need protocols so that people can be comfortable that their data is only being accessed when necessary and with their permission.

    But if the banks can make people confident that their money is safe, we must surely be able to develop a system that keeps medical records safe too.

    Then there is the importance of the doctor-patient relationship.  There will be many times when only a face-to-face meeting will do.

    But allowing repeat prescriptions to be booked online will free up much more time for such meetings, as well as offering a better and more convenient service for patients.

    Finally, people say that we’ve been here before.  That Labour tried it and failed. The truth is that Labour had the right idea but the wrong approach.

    Labour’s Connecting for Health became the NHS equivalent of ordering an aircraft carrier. A project that became over-centralised, over-specified and ultimately impossible to deliver.

    What works – and you can see this everywhere – is local solutions, local decisions and local leadership.

    Most systems won’t necessarily need to be replaced, just updated or adapted so they can talk with each other.  A thousand different local solutions linking together using common standards.

    If this sounds incredibly complex, it’s actually very  commonplace.  It’s why your Blackberry can talk to my iPhone. It’s why all of those apps on our phones integrate so seamlessly.  It’s why you can use any computer, phone or tablet and log on to the internet to catch up on the latest news or watch a video on YouTube.

    Things don’t have to be the same.  They just have to be compatible.

    Why do it

    Today’s report by PWC confirms what we already know.  That the right sort of technology, used in the right way, can release billions of pounds to be re-invested in better, safer care – and millions of hours of staff time for better patient care.

    And it can do something else too.

    Over a million people have some form of contact with the NHS every 36 hours and have done so for over 60 years.  This produces mind-boggling amounts of data that, if properly utilised with the right safeguards, can help improve treatments, unlock new cures and transform the face of modern health and social care.

    The challenge

    The stakes are high.  But already we have made real progress in preparing the NHS for a paperless, digital future.

    In November, I announced in the NHS Mandate that by March 2015 everyone who wants it will be able to get online access to their GP record, as well as book appointments with their GP and order repeat prescriptions online.

    E-consultations, like those in Newham, will also become much more widely available.

    Today I can confirm that the NHS Commissioning Board have agreed that hospitals should be able to share digital data from April 2014, and to adopt paperless referrals from April 2015.  It is currently working on detailed guidance to help local NHS organisations make the leap.

    This follows on from other recent steps:

    Changing the standard NHS contract to insist that providers comply with defined information standards.

    Setting up ‘care.data’, a service to give local commissioners timely and accurate information on the performance of providers.

    From this summer, we’ll begin to publish huge amounts of clinical data on a wide range of surgical procedures, everything from vascular surgery to bariatric surgery.  Bringing unprecedented transparency to great swathes of NHS performance.

    And to drive all of this, from 2013/14, the NHS number will become a patient’s primary means of identification within the health and care system, enabling all of their records, wherever they are held to combine around the individual person.

    Conclusion

    So, to conclude, technology is not a holy grail or a silver bullet for all the challenges facing the NHS.  It must always be a means to an end and not an end in itself.

    But properly adopted, it has the potential to play a central role in facing up to the core challenge of dealing with an ageing society in which patients insist on a more personalised service.

    As Bill Gates said, “Never before in history has innovation offered promise of so much to so many in so short a time”.

    Well, health needs to be at the front of the queue in taking advantage of that promise – and I am determined it will be.

    Thank you.

  • Mark Hoban – 2013 Speech on Social Justice and Welfare Reform

    markhoban

    The below speech was made by the Minister for Employment, Mark Hoban, at the LGA Conference on Troubled Families in London on 23rd January 2013.

    Under the previous government, billions of pounds were moved around the tax and benefits system in an attempt to reduce poverty. But the complexity of the previous system had the perverse effect of trapping thousands of people on benefits. Through tax credits in particular, even quite wealthy people became entangled in a labyrinthine benefits system. The benefits bill spiralled out of control, and despite this, child poverty targets were missed.

    This is something the coalition government is determined to tackle. True social justice will only really be achieved when families are able to provide for themselves.

    Now this is no simple task, and of course there will always be people who need our help. But this help should be in the form of a safety net, and a leg up. Not a way of life which traps people with little hope of escape.

    The only real, sustainable way this can be achieved is by giving people the help and support they need to move into work. By working, people can earn the money they need to look after themselves and their families.

    But money isn’t the only reason. Having a job means much, much more.

    Having a job gives you pride, self-worth and dignity. Having a job gives you more control over your own life. Having a job shows your children that a life on benefits isn’t the only option.

    Now of course none of this can be achieved without there being jobs available. I am not complacent – I know there are people up and down the country who are struggling to find work.

    But despite tough economic times, recent employment figures have been encouraging, with more people working than ever before. Indeed figures which were published only this morning show that once again employment is up and unemployment is down.

    But I am well aware this isn’t the only answer. We need a benefits system which helps people move into jobs. And that is why we have embarked on the most radical reform of the welfare state ever.

    The benefits system had become so bloated that, for many people, moving into a job didn’t seem like an option.

    So under Universal Credit, which starts to be rolled-out in a few months, people will always be better off in work. People will no longer be trapped in a confusing web of entitlements and add-ons. And people will always be able to increase their hours without losing out financially

    And whether it’s giving lone parents the help they need to move off income support and into work, or reassessing people on incapacity benefit to see if they are capable of work, I am determined that we never again write people off. Never again will there be so much wasted potential. Never again will people be consigned to a lifetime on benefits when they could be helped into work.

    But getting the structure of the benefit system right, whilst necessary, isn’t enough in itself. We need to remove the barriers to work, particularly for the hardest to help – those who are furthest away from the labour market.

    For people in a family where there are multiple problems, having the jobs available is only part of the solution. They might need help to tackle unsatisfactory housing, help to manage a violent domestic life, help to learn personal skills and increase their confidence. These can all be vital in helping people make the change from a life on benefits to a life in work.

    And that is where we need to work together. As people on the front line, you more than most will see how complex the lives of people in troubled families are. And you will see the need for extra help.

    That is why, in December 2011, we set up the programme to provide support for people in families with multiple problems – to help them tackle some of their difficulties and move towards a job.

    Funded through the European Social Fund (ESF) programme, the DWP made two hundred million pounds available to help tackle entrenched worklessness amongst troubled families. This help is there to support families identified by Local Authorities as having the sort of problems that typically overwhelm people. Families who feel there are just too many barriers to see work as a realistic prospect. Families struggling with problems like debt, difficult living conditions, involvement with drugs or crime, and a lack of skills or work experience.

    This programme is intended to work across the family, across the generations and across the range of problems they may face.

    Now working to tackle such challenging problems across local and national government is inevitably going to have teething problems. But I have to say that collaborative working is nothing new, and I’ve seen for myself how it can work very well.

    Only last week I went to Wood Green Jobcentre Plus where their Community Engagement Adviser works closely with Haringey council and their locally-led jobs fund.

    Or in Grimsby where a local fish-filleting factory is able to take on trainees using a combination of Youth Contract measures and a wage incentive offered by the local authority. Or in Gloucester where Jobcentre Plus advisers work with schools and the Local Authority to pool resources and provide a single point of contact for young jobseekers.

    We want to replicate such successes with the ESF programme. By combining your expertise at working with these families with the tailored support that our providers are offering, together we can make a big difference to people’s lives.

    Because where this has happened, the scheme is working well.

    Take Rochdale Council, for example, where there is very strong support for the families agenda from the Chief Executive down, and they play a leading role in the Trouble Families Programme for Greater Manchester. Rochdale’s ESF families support and their Troubled Families programme are very closely integrated, helping them to identify pockets of deprivation to target resources.

    Or in Liverpool where the council works closely with the prime contractor, Reed. Together they ensure that the ESF Families programme complements their existing ‘Liverpool in Work’ scheme, without duplication or competition. Now the provisions are able to refer people between them depending on individual need.

    So while there are a number of shining examples, I think everyone here would agree that it could be working better.

    I know that you have not been asked to make direct referrals on this scale before, and I know that some of you have frustrations with the way things have worked.

    But let me reassure you – we are completely committed to turning around the lives of some of the most troubled families in this country, and we are looking at ways in which the process can be fine-tuned. And in return we hope that you, the Local Authorities, to play a stronger role too.

    Perhaps the most fundamental issue is the lack of a sufficient flow of people and families into the provision; meaning expert knowledge isn’t being used to its full potential. I recognise that some of the providers have faced initial difficulties, which is why we have made some changes to things such as funding. And I completely understand that a number of local authorities have been reorganising their services in order to deliver programmes like these.

    But the funding and the expert provision is there to be taken advantage of. And the provision is often innovative and flexible, such as Skills Training UK who have re-branded the ESF Families provision as ‘Progress! The Go Further programme’ in the South East. In one local authority, Progress arranges courses on anger management and confidence-building. But rather than having to wait for a new course to start, they are run on a ‘roll-on, roll-off’ basis so people can join whenever they are ready.

    So now is the time to take action – it is really important that you encourage your frontline staff to make use of the provision available. And my commitment to you is that I will ensure my Department’s extensive employment expertise is able to be more directly supportive of outcomes for these families.

    I believe that helping people move closer to a job is the best way to fundamentally change people’s lives. Of course, this won’t be easy for some people, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do all we can to tackle it. Because between us we have the expertise and skills that have the potential to make a real difference to people’s lives. But we can only do this by working together.

  • Alex Salmond – 2013 Speech to SNP Conference

    alexsalmond

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, to the 2013 SNP Spring Conference.

    A week is indeed a long time in politics.

    On Thursday we announced the date of the independence referendum – Scotland’s date with destiny.

    My advisers told me that within a few minutes of making the announcement, I was “trending” in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

    Delegates, I was so disappointed – at first I thought they said I was “trendy” in Edinburgh and Glasgow!

    Well friends. Meet cool Eck fae Buchan.

    On 18 September 2014 we will have the opportunity to ensure that decisions about Scotland are taken by the people who care most about Scotland – the people who live and work here.

    Few nations and very few generations are fortunate enough to make such an important decision – we are in every sense  the lucky ones.

    It’s a vote for the people of Scotland – every citizen aged 16 up – and rightly so.  But do not underestimate the positive lesson to the wider world of a nation deciding its future by debate and democracy.

    It was former President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, who last October described Scotland’s referendum as a “remarkable and wonderful phenomenon”.

    Whether you are Yes, No – or like many at this stage a Dinnae Ken – we can all be proud that our nation is embarked on such an exciting journey in an impeccably democratic way.

    The 18th September 2014 is the day when every one of us will be asked to take the future of our country into our hands.

    And for years to come people will be asked to say by friends, neighbours, children and grandchildren to say how they voted on that day.

    And when that question comes, as come it will, let us make sure that each one of us can proudly say YES.

    I was one of those who voted by majority for a new future for Scotland.

    Friends, this party has never wavered from our commitment to trust the people to decide the issue of independence.

    While the Westminster parties ganged up to block a referendum in the last parliament – when the SNP were a minority – we held fast to Scotland’s democratic rights.

    THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE IS IN OUR DNA.

    This moment – Scotland’s moment – was the life-work of dedicated servants of Scotland such as the much-missed Jimmy Halliday.  When Jimmy led our party in the 1950s, a referendum to achieve an independent Scotland was just a dream  – but one he never wavered from.

    And the work of Jimmy and countless thousands others has made their dream our  reality – we thank them now, and will thank them best by achieving that Yes vote in the referendum.

    And because we have always trusted the people, I believe they will put their trust in the Yes campaign on the 18th of September next year – and vote with those of us who want to build a prosperous economy and a just society.

    Next year will be a huge year for Scotland not just for politics but for a range of events which will focus the attention of the planet on our country – the Commonwealth Games, the Ryder Cup, the second Homecoming Year.

    We will make sure that each of these events is a success for Scotland, but we also wish to see them as a catalyst for positive change.

    Exactly a year ago  I announced the establishment of a £10 million fund to help local communities bring sports facilities across Scotland into the 21st century.

    This year we are going further adding another £7 million to this initiative, meaning that over 80 projects across Scotland will be completed in good time for the Commonwealth Games.

    So whether its snowsports in Midlothian (for which there is plenty of raw material), Olympic swimming pools in Dundee and Aberdeen, 3G pitches in Dumfries and Galloway, or the outdoor community facility in Aviemore these facilities will provide real benefits.

    OUR AIM IS TO INSPIRE SCOTS YOUNG AND OLD TO SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH GAMES TO BECOME A BETTER NATION.  

    Friends – it is said that to govern is to choose but even more fundamental than that is to choose how you are governed.

    That choice – THE REAL CHOICE – becomes clearer by the day – the opportunity to use our vast resources and talent to build a better country, or to continue with a Westminster system that simply isn’t working for Scotland – a system which has not worked in the past, is not working now and will not work in the future..

    Take the big issues debated in the Scottish Parliament last week – they illustrate exactly why an independent Scotland is the right choice.

    It is ten years since the Scottish Parliament first debated the Iraq war – when a catalogue of deception by a Labour Prime Minister – a Labour Prime Minister – led the UK into an illegal conflict that came at enormous human cost.

    Almost 5,000 allied soldiers – 179 from the UK – and well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives as a result of a foreign policy disaster which made Suez look like a picnic in the sun.

    Now when our brave service men and women are sent into danger, we have a duty to give them our full support – and we have an equal duty to discuss the reasons why.  The people who elected us to public office expect nothing less.

    However, the No campaign parties in the Scottish Parliament actually tried to gag us from debating Iraq – Labour even claimed it was not a real issue.

    Try telling the families who have lost a loved one to the war in Iraq that this is not a ‘real issue’.  Try telling them it should be airbrushed away.

    The reality of the situation is that our opponents want to avoid confronting their demons, because they know they backed an illegal war based on a lie – the myth of weapons of mass destruction.

    In the Scottish Parliament, there are still 8 of the Tory MSPs and 15 Labour MSPs who voted for the Iraq war – including their leader.

    11 of the Scottish Labour MPs who voted for the war are still in the House of Commons – including No campaigner in chief, Alistair Darling.

    Another 10 have even been ‘elevated’ – if that is the right word – to the House of Lords.

    Labour and the Tories, Tories and Labour – they were wrong together about the Iraq war 10 years ago.

    And they should apologise together now.

    Friends, the imposition of the Poll Tax by Margaret Thatcher persuaded the majority of people that we needed a parliament with the powers to stop such divisive social experiments being visited upon Scotland.

    Instead of being just a good idea, a parliament became necessary if we were to protect Scotland’s social fabric, and ensure that domestic policy reflected the will of the people.

    Tony Blair’s legacy is to demonstrate why Scotland needs to go further.  The catastrophe of Iraq shows why our parliament needs to have the powers of independence – so that never again can Scotland be dragged into an illegal war on false pretences.

    I’m certain that the lie that led to Iraq would not have been perpetrated by the government of an independent Scotland, of any political persuasion. But we have to be absolutely certain.

    Other countries – including Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland – have constitutional guarantees that they will not go to war without a proper process of parliamentary approval, and a similar such undertaking could be written into the constitution of an independent Scotland.

    Friends, I believe it should be – indeed it has to be to demonstrate that our new Scotland is something worth voting for.

    That is part of the WHY of independence.

    The US/UK invasion of Iraq was about non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

    But delegates, there are real weapons of mass destruction. Weapons Inspectors  would have had no problem finding them in Scotland.

    Just one hundred and fifty miles from here the Trident missile system is based on the Clyde Estuary, just along the road from our most populous city, with an estimated cost for its renewal of up to one hundred billion pounds.

    Trident was conceived by the Tories, presided over by Labour just as Polaris before it was conceived by Labour and presided over by the Tories.

    The process of its renewal for another 50 years – another half century – is happening under a Tory/Lib Dem coalition supported by Labour.

    Trident is Westminster’s ultimate vanity obscenity but now is entirely dependent on next year’s vote.

    Because, delegates, it’s now clear that the only way, the only way, we can finally remove these weapons of mass destruction is with a Yes vote for independence.

    THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE WHY OF INDEPENDENCE.

    Friends, I’m proud to lead a Government that has made the Scottish Parliament work for our people.  That’s why the Scottish Social Attitudes survey showed that 71 per cent of people trust Holyrood to act in Scotland’s best interests – four-times more than trust Westminster.

    In the face of appalling financial pressures, we have have chosen a different path from Westminster – a path that reflects Scotland’s social democratic consensus, our shared progressive values, our priorities as a society.

    On all the key domestic issues Scotland trumps Westminster.

    Down south, the UK Government’s own figures reveal that England will see a 16,000 reduction in the number of police officers.  And to compound this, the starting wage of new officers has been reduced.

    South of the Border the thin blue line has just got a lot thinner.

    In contrast, the SNP government has delivered and protected 1,000 extra police officers on our streets.  A great achievement – and one that Labour said would take us 13 years!

    Just next week, Scotland’s new national police force comes into place, along with Scotland’s new national fire and rescue service.

    Friends this Government will always value the work of our emergency services – the people who have been mobilised all of last night helping our fellow citizens.

    It is our approach to front line policing which has delivered not only a 37-year low in recorded crime but also a fall in the fear of crime that causes such misery.

    That’s why Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill gets cheered to the rafters at the Police Federation conference.  And why his Tory counterpart at Westminster gets booed off the stage.

    On health, Scotland continues to protect frontline health spending, despite the Westminster cuts and the huge pressures on our budget.

    Prescription charges – the tax on the sick – have been abolished in Scotland, even as they rise to £7.85 in England.

    We have record patient satisfaction with our health service, the job our health professionals do, often in difficult circumstances.

    We have maintained a genuine National Health Service in Scotland – free at the point of need – even as the NHS is being fragmented and privatised south of the Border, first under Labour and then by the Tories.

    Professor Don Berwick is a world-renowned expert on patient safety, David Cameron’s new ‘health tsar’, and a former adviser to President Obama.  This is what he says about the strength of the Scottish system:

    “The Scottish Patient Safety Programme marks Scotland as a leader, second to no nation on earth, in its commitment to reducing harm to patients, dramatically and continually.”

    That must always be our goal, in every aspect of our health service and national life – ‘second to no nation on earth’.

    FOUR YEARS AGO AT OUR CONFERENCE WE ANNOUNCED THAT WE WOULD DRIVE OUT THE PRIVATISATION OF CLEANING SERVICES IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.

    Since then healthcare acquired infections have dropped by 80 per cent.

    IS THERE ANY MORE VINDICATION NEEDED OF ALEX NEIL’S DETERMINATION TO HAVE A PUBLICLY RUN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE FREE AT THE POINT OF NEED.

    The Scottish Parliament does not control the key economic levers but we do have economic powers. We have used them to deliver the best help for the small business sector – the backbone of our economy – available anywhere in these islands.

    We have used them to win more jobs from inward investment compared to any other part of these islands – including London.

    And we now have lower unemployment – including youth unemployment – than the UK as a whole.

    One year ago youth unemployment was almost 25 per cent as young people bore the brunt of the Labour/Tory recession.

    Then we appointed Scotland’s first Minister for Youth Employment, gathered together our stakeholders from the STUC and from business, almost doubled the number of apprenticeships, focussed college courses on full time preparation for employment, introduced the youth guarantee for 16-19 year olds.

    What has been the result?

    In one year youth unemployment has gone down by one third, from 103,000 to 68,000.  Still far too high, but a dramatic difference to the lives of thousands of youngsters.

    ON THIS WEEK’S FIGURES ALL OF THE UK FALL OF 34,000 OVER THE YEAR IN YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT TOOK PLACE IN SCOTLAND.

    FRIENDS  WHAT A DEMONSTRATION OF THE WORK OF ANGELA CONSTANCE AS SCOTLAND’S MINISTER FOR YOUTH EMPLOYMENT.

    We cannot allow these successes to be blown away in an eternal economic winter of Westminster austerity.

    This week’s Westminster Budget is following a familiar pattern, fizz on the day, a hangover the day after.

    Even the fizz only lasted until we found they had swiped another £50 million from the Scottish Budget for this coming year, without so much as a by your leave.

    But there is much more bad news in this Budget. Analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that from 2016 the Westminster Budget means either £500 tax rises for every family or further cuts in public services which they describe as “eye watering”.

    That is the grim future for Scottish families under Westminster rule.

    And would there be a different prospectus from Labour? – not a chance.

    At Westminster they dance to the Tory tune. In Scotland they are preparing to rip up the social gains of devolution.

    This week was one of Labour abstention in votes in Holyrood and Westminster.

    They abstained on the war, they abstained on Trident, they abstained on bus passes, they even abstained on workfare at Westminster.

    LABOUR – THE GREAT ABSTAINERS ON EVERYTHING – EXCEPT MINIMUM PRICING FOR ALCOHOL WHICH THEY OPPOSED!

    The SNP offer a different future.

    At Holyrood we will defend the social gains – policies such as free personal care and bus passes for our older folk – who have paid their taxes, powered our economy, raised the children, and deserve something back from society.  That is what it means to be a society.

    AND THE ROCKS WILL MELT WITH THE SUN BEFORE WE ALLOW TORY OR LABOUR TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT TO FREE EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.

    Delegates, the Yes campaign is predicated on the compelling truth that decisions about Scotland are best made by the people who live and work here. That was once a theory, but is now an indisputable fact.

    Since the restoration of our parliament in 1999, we have demonstrated that in law & order, health, education, business support, and the great social services of Scotland – our parliament delivers the policies that are right for Scotland, and reflect the views and votes of the people.

    That is the very prize and purpose of self-government.

    And if it is true in these devolved areas, it is equally true in all areas of public life.

    That is the prize and purpose of an independent Scotland.

    With each passing day it becomes clearer that the Westminster system is not fit for any purpose – it is further away than ever from Scotland’s values, and past its time.

    The iniquitous Bedroom Tax is the latest example – in a House of Commons debate led by the SNP and Plaid Cymru, over 90 per cent of Scottish MPs voted against it.

    We know from Scottish Government research that the extra costs the Bedroom Tax impose on the Scottish economy will outweigh any savings the UK Government makes – even before we factor in the wider social costs and the distress and disruption it will cause.

    But still it is imposed on Scotland.  And to add insult to injury, the architect of this  shambles – Iain Duncan Smith – has to be dragged kicking and screaming to deign to defend his policy to a committee of the Scottish Parliament.

    Friends this is an iniquitous, unfair, anti-family imposition conceived because of runaway rent levels in the south.

    WHY SHOULD PEOPLE WHO WOULD IMPOSE SUCH INIQUITY HAVE ANY POWER AND AUTHORITY OVER THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE.

    Friends we have acted to mitigate the worst impacts of welfare changes. Acting with COSLA we have sheltered hundreds of thousands of families from council tax rises, we have established loan funds, increased support for advice centres.

    And today I can announce that all SNP-led local authorities will follow the lead of Dundee in halting the threat of evictions from this disgraceful tax for those struggling to pay.

    However what Scotland needs is not mitigation but power, not just a defence against Westminster but a removal of Westminster authority over Scotland.

    Delegates last year I made a speech pointing out the opportunities to grow the Scottish economy with control over our taxation policy. No-one in this world owes Scotland a living, every policy we articulate needs to focus on our competitiveness as a country.

    That is part of the WHY of Independence.

    Today I want to illustrate why social change can also release the untapped potential of Scotland and make us not just a prosperous economy but a just society and why these concepts go hand in hand – a prosperous economy and a just society.

    Last week the unemployment figures showed Scots unemployment below the UK average. However look behind these figures and see a glaring inequality which holds the nation back.

    66% of women are in employment compared to 76% of men.

    Now that is not down to lack of talent. Women now make up 55 per cent of entrants into higher education and the number of Modern Apprenticeship starts for women has increased from 27 per cent to 43 per cent.

    But in terms of lower numbers of women in employment it really doesn’t have to be like that. Elsewhere in Europe the gender gap is much much less.

    If we closed the opportunity gap we would add to our national wealth and to our taxation base by mobilising the skills of women into our workforce.

    But there would be another change – a fundamental opportunity to improve the life chances of many of our children.

    We have long cherished the ambition to increase pre-school education.  In our first term, we moved it from 412 to 475 free nursery hours per annum, benefiting 100,000 children a year.

    And last year I announced a step further – a statutory guarantee of over 600 hours of free nursery education for every 3 and 4 year old, and for every looked after 2 year old in our land.

    This is a statement of faith and commitment to the future and it is being carried forward without the fears of lower standards now prevalent in the south of the border.

    Flexible in its delivery, using the wisdom of the Early Years Taskforce to help us, but definite in our intent.

    For every young mum and dad juggling work and parenthood, this SNP Government is here for you and your family.

    This is what we can achieve with a devolved Parliament.  But devolution can only take Scotland so far.  We don’t have the financial freedom to give us the biggest bang for our buck – to invest in areas where Scotland could make huge social and economic strides.

    So let us consider what more we could achieve in an independent Scotland.

    I HAVE ASKED THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS TO PRODUCE AN ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT ON SCOTLAND MOVING TO THE LEVELS OF SUPPORT FOR CHILDCARE COMMONPLACE ACROSS EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

    Our ambitions for childcare are the hallmark of our approach to social and economic policy – we promote the measures we do because they advance both our economy and our society.

    Some argue there is a contradiction between the two, but the reality is that a progressive social policy boosts the economy, and a dynamic economy enables us to build the fairer society we want.  Each is the handmaiden of the other.

    It will not be done in a day, or a year, or even completed in the first term of an independent parliament.

    But I believe a transformational shift towards childcare should be one of the first tasks of an independent Scotland.

    That too is part of the why of independence.

    Friends ours is a noble cause because we are arguing for the rights and responsibilities, not of ourselves, but of our country.

    We are arguing for something bigger than any individual, any party, any campaign –the benefits of which will endure for generations to come.

    The biggest advantage of the Yes campaign is that we put no limits on the abilities of this nation to build prosperity and wellbeing for all the people.

    The biggest problem for the No campaign is their fear and scorn of a Scotland aspiring to equality of status among the nations of the world.

    Our opponents in the No campaign will say and do anything to keep Scotland where they think it should be.

    In terms of GDP per head, right now an independent Scotland would be the 8th wealthiest country in the league table of the world’s most developed nations.

    If the No campaign believe Scotland doesn’t have what it takes to be an independent country, they must think that only the 7 countries above Scotland can be independent – and the UK wouldn’t be one of them, because it trails at number 17 overtaken this year once again by Iceland!

    Delegates, our opponents often say we cannot afford to be independent.  I say Scotland can’t afford NOT to be independent.

    To listen to the No campaign, they’d have you believe that a new generation of Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde was a fantastic asset – and having generations of oil and gas revenues to come was a big problem!

    That is the looking glass fantasy they want Scotland to believe.

    But the people aren’t daft – they know that Scottiish energy resources are the asset, Trident is the problem, and Westminster the liability.

    Combining the natural and human resources of Scotland is the way to fairness and prosperity.

    Our call for the 18th of September next year is one to optimism and progress.

    There was a referendum once when Scotland was cheated out of our right to self-government.

    Listen to just this one example – among the tirade of scare stories – used to frighten people into voting No to self-government in 1979.  It was a Daily Express editorial 10 days before the referendum:

    “How much of Scotland’s economy will be left intact if a Scottish Assembly gets the go-ahead on March 1?  Will our coal mines go gaily on?  Will Ravenscraig or Linwood thrive?  Will Bathgate flourish and Dounreay prosper?”

    No assembly came in 1979 – and every plant and facility listed by the Express closed under Westminster-rule – all gone, every one.

    We will not be conned again.

    We achieved a Parliament in 1997 – overcoming a welter of scaremongering in a referendum.  And we have never looked back.  The latest survey shows that only 6% of Scots want to turn the clock back to having no parliament.

    It will be exactly the same with independence.

    All of the things they say about independence now were said about devolution then.  And we know they were wrong, because as a nation we have proved them wrong together these past 14 years.

    We can now look back and say that thanks to having a parliament, Scotland has a National Health Service worthy of the name, free education for young Scots, and personal care for our older citizens.

    None of these things exist south of the Border, and none would exist in Scotland today without self-government.

    I believe in ten years time we will look back and say that thanks to independence we will have a thriving economy, a welfare state worthy of the name, the best childcare system anywhere in these islands, and the obscenity of Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde will be but a distant memory.

    Friends, the referendum for an independent Scotland is a precious opportunity – one given to no previous generation.  We do not know if we will pass this way again.

    I believe Scotland will vote Yes next September – and give a renewed purpose to this old nation.

    A ‘new sang’ to sound a better Scotland.

  • Alex Salmond – 2013 New Year’s Speech

    alexsalmond

    Below is the text of the news release relating to the speech made by Alex Salmond to mark 2013.

    The First Minister’s New Year message highlighted the restoration of free higher education as an example of the kind of difference that could be made in areas such as social security and foreign affairs following the referendum in 2014.

    Following the abolition of graduate endowment fees in 2007, Scotland’s colleges and universities have seen record numbers of Scots, English and overseas students studying higher education, while the number of people accepted into Scottish universities has increased again this year.

    In his message, recorded at the University of Aberdeen’s ‘magnificent’ new Sir Duncan Rice Library, Mr Salmond recalled that one of the Scottish Government’s very first decisions, in 2007, was to restore Scotland’s “centuries-old tradition of free education” as he asked people across the country to consider the position if Scotland had had to follow the same route as the rest of the UK.

    He added: “The results of this are now plain to see. This year, people accepted into Scottish universities have increased. And we’ve record numbers of Scottish, English and overseas students studying higher education at our Scottish colleges and universities. In contrast, the prospect of sky-high tuition fees in England has seen acceptances for universities there sinking like a stone, with tens of thousands of youngsters being denied their life opportunity.

    “Now this contrast between what is happening here and what isn’t happening there has only been made possible because it is the Scottish Parliament which runs Scottish education. But let’s imagine what would happen if we didn’t control education or if, as some people suggest, we imposed English-style tuition fees. Numbers at our universities would collapse. We would be mortgaging our own country’s future.

    “And just as the Scottish Parliament has restored free education, so it offers security to our old people with free personal care and protects us all by keeping vital public services, like health and water, in public hands. It is what makes it worthwhile to have our own Parliament and it is why the Scottish Parliament is now trusted by almost four times the number of people who trust Westminster.”

    The First Minister invited Scots to consider how they might vote if the referendum in 2014 was for an independent Scotland to give up its independence and hand over powers in areas like welfare or foreign affairs to the Westminster Parliament in London. Those arguing for such a move would be pursuing “mission impossible” and would be “laughed at from Gretna Green to Dunnet Head,” Mr Salmond continued.

    “This New Year the joke’s on us – because that is exactly the position that we have in Scotland right now. But in 2014 we will all have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something about it.”

    “This Scottish Government has a positive vision of the future of this country. We can build a new independent nation. It is a vision of a country that earns its wealth and shares it more fairly. A country confident in itself and its place in the world. A country which makes the most of its natural resources. And a country where everyone gets a fair shout and a decent chance. In the meantime, as we work towards that future, let me wish each and everyone of you a happy and prosperous New Year.”

  • Mark Lowcock – 2013 Speech on Ethiopia

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Lowcock, the Permanent Secretary at the Department for International Development, on 12th December 2013.

    Introduction

    Justine Greening, my Secretary of State, has made economic development –especially creating jobs to reduce dependency and improve the opportunities of the poor – 1 of the very top priorities for Britain’s international development programme.

    I am delighted to be able to discuss with you here today what that means in Ethiopia, and how Britain and Ethiopia can work together on this issue. And to be returning to a country I have visited regularly for nearly thirty years. My first visit was as a fresh-faced twenty-something in 1986 – I hope the economists amongst you can do the maths!

    Like my boss (and all good people!), I am an accountant who studied economics and went to business school.

    So I’m particularly pleased to be talking about these issues with an audience of economics and business students from the Economics and Political Science and International Relations Department, as well as policy makers and business people. I know this proud faculty can rightly consider itself 1 of the places of strength in teaching economics and business studies in Africa. Students from this faculty have become the bedrock of both the civil service and the private sector in Ethiopia. I know that when I speak today I am speaking to Ethiopia’s future movers and shakers.

    I am also delighted to be speaking to you in this new Eshetu Chole Building. I am sure you all know that Eshetu Chole was an esteemed Ethiopian economist whose knowledge, capacity and skill were of enormous pride to Ethiopians, and respected by other Africans.

    As well as looking at economic development, I am here in Ethiopia to discuss higher education and understand better how the UK might support your academic institutions. Both DFID and the British Council have supported linkages and knowledge transfer partnerships between Ethiopian and UK Higher Education Institutions. We are looking to do more, and I have just had the pleasure of meeting your State Minister for Higher Education, Dr Kaba, where we discussed this issue.

    And I know higher education matters greatly to Ethiopians. Indeed, your late Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, somehow found the time to study for an MBA at the UK’s Open University, while also running your country. He earned 1 of the best business degrees the Open University has ever awarded. No pressure on you then!

    But back to economic development.

    It’s always a source of wonder for me how much the country has changed. I know how frustrating it is for Ethiopians that views of your country are still shaped by the terrible famines of the 1980s. Too many people wrongly think that Ethiopia is still suffering in the same way.

    Yours is a country of incredible achievements and diversity. From the green and fertile plains of the highland regions. To the dry camel-filled Somali Regional State. From the almost supernatural landscape of the Danakil. To the jaw-dropping vistas of the Simien Mountains. Ethiopia as a country could not be more diverse. Its people could not be more diverse. And their needs could not be more diverse.

    But 1 of the things that has brought this most diverse of nations together has been the singularity of vision. Ethiopia’s success, over the past decade in particular, has been to maintain that vision. And turn it from a dream into a living, breathing, and forward looking reality.

    In the last 30 years life expectancy here has increased by 50%. Ethiopia is on track to meet most of the Millennium Development Goals. You have achieved the infant mortality goal 2 years early. Economic growth, in double digits, has been impressive. All the more so because, unlike other parts of the continent, it hasn’t been driven by commodities alone. Per capita income has doubled.

    On my last visit to Ethiopia, 2 years ago, I was privileged enough to spend a day alongside a young woman called Eyerusalem. She has a job breaking rocks for road building, but I was not very good at that. She earns money washing clothes for her neighbour, and I was even worse at that. And she collects water from the river, which I could not do at all – the container was too heavy and the rocks too slippery. Today Eyerusalem has a job in local government, earning 700 Birr a month – money which helps her to support both herself and her family. Her story illustrates how far – and how fast – Ethiopia has changed.

    On this visit I’ve had a very different but equally fascinating time. I spent yesterday looking at how economic development is changing Ethiopia. I spoke to farmers whose land tenure is being made more secure, to small shopkeepers benefiting from micro-finance in Addis’s outskirts and to workers at a state-of-the-art leather factory.

    I have heard first hand from a range of Ethiopian firms and foreign investors about the increasing attraction of Ethiopia as a place to do business. Drawn by Ethiopia’s sustained economic success, the size of its growing market, and its potential as a location for production, a range of industries are emerging that barely existed when I first visited.

    I have seen, for example, a successful vegetable producer, who exports produce to the EU. And I’ve met with a host of UK firms who are being drawn here, from leather glove makers, to clothes retailers to drinks manufacturers. This is both to their benefit, and that of Ethiopia, which stands to gain from their financial investment, creation of jobs and sharing of best practice.

    I think that that the strides that you have made away from poverty and famine, towards development and shared prosperity, make Ethiopia 1 of the world’s great development success stories of the last twenty years.

    Theme of inclusive growth and managing transitions

    The theme of my talk today is what drives inclusive growth and how to best manage the transitions that growth may bring over the next 10 years.

    Why? Firstly, because Ethiopia is already booming. But Ethiopians know there is still much to do. I hope the keen young economists and business students among you, not to mention policy makers and business people, will be asking yourselves these questions. How can Ethiopia sustain its success? How can you adapt to the changes which will come in its wake? There may be useful lessons to learn from other countries. And others can learn from you too.

    Adjusting to the challenges that transformation brings is just as important as sustaining growth. I believe there is a saying in Ethiopia, ‘siroTu yetatekut siroTu YeFetale’. Just in case my attempt at Amharic is less than perfect, I’d better add the English version: ‘a belt fastened while running will come undone while running’.

    Secondly, because the UK’s partnership with Ethiopia needs to adapt and change too. This is our largest development programme in the world. We’re incredibly proud of the things we’ve helped Ethiopia achieve to date. We want to be here for the long-haul. But we would like our relationship to change over time from a donor-recipient one to one of import-export and equal partnership on the world stage, on issues that affect us all, like climate change, world trade and counter-terrorism.

    As part of this, we want to expand our work on economic development here. Mindful that in the long run it will be the private sector development that will lead the process of job creation and provide the tax base for social spending and public investment by future generations.

    We’re starting with new support on land certification, access to finance and helping make the leather, textile and horticulture sectors in Ethiopia truly world class. But we want to go beyond this. We want to help Ethiopia attract the private capital, technology and know-how it needs to achieve its ambitious growth targets. And end reliance on external support, potentially within a generation. I hope in the discussion after my talk, you’ll give me some ideas on where we can best help.

    Inclusive growth

    So, back to my first theme. What drives inclusive growth?

    Ethiopia has very clear ideas about where it wants to be by 2025, and the best way to get there. Now, every country grows differently, and finds its own path. But it’s worth reflecting on some of the common features of countries that have successfully transformed themselves.

    The Commission for Growth and Development, set up by the World Bank in 2008, did a good job of setting out some of these features. They looked at 13 success stories of sustained and transformational growth to see what feature they shared. They came up with 5 ‘ingredients’. With 9 of these 13 countries being east Asian, I think the ingredients have particular resonance for a country like Ethiopia.

    The first of these features highlighted by the Commission was integration into the global economy. Two aspects of this are particularly important. First is the willingness and ability to import ideas, technology, and know-how from the rest of the world. Second, these countries exploited global demand. They encouraged a specialisation that allowed them to excel in world markets. The 4 east Asian Tigers, for instance, saw their manufacturing exports grow from under $5bn in 1962 to $715bn in 2004.

    Ethiopia is moving towards this kind of integration. It has publicly set a target of joining the WTO. It has a rising export base, including diversifying from traditional crops like coffee into new areas like cut flowers. There’s a booming services sector, to which energy exports could soon become a major contributor. And foreign direct investment is being actively courted. This is an incredibly effective carrier of ideas and know-how, as well as bringing in capital resources. However, inward FDI flows have not yet matched the levels of other parts of Africa. Nor the levels associated with take-off in many of the Asian examples of dramatic transformation. More on this later.

    The second common feature of these high performing economies has been macroeconomic stability. Whilst some may have experienced periods of high inflation – Korea in the 70s, for instance, or China in the mid-90s – it’s clear that the countries of east Asia took action in the face of these episodes, even though this may have been unpopular at the time. They knew that inflation would deter savers and threaten long term goals. Equally, fiscal deficits rose and fell but were contained to ensure they did not pose a risk to savers and deter investors.

    Again, this reminds me of what I see in Ethiopia. The Government has recently taken action to get inflation back under single digits and there is not the history of macroeconomic instability we see in much of Africa. I admire the way my friend Ato Sufian, your Finance Minister, and others in your Government approach macroeconomic stability

    The third feature is a focus on the future and high saving and investment rates. A key pillar of the success of the east Asian tigers was their farsighted decision to forgo consumption today in order to pursue higher levels of income in the future. China, for instance, is famous for having saved more than a third of its income for over a generation. These savings rates are what facilitated the high levels of investment, both public and private, that characterised these countries’ development paths.

    Whilst savings rates have increased in Ethiopia in the last couple of years, they remain lower. Definitions vary but over the last 5 years they have averaged less than 10% of GDP. Whilst investment spending has passed a quarter of all economic activity. In some ways this appears to be an enigma. Ethiopia is 1 of the few countries in the world to have successfully raised incomes but seen private savings rates drop. This is possibly the biggest difference between Ethiopia and the east Asian tigers.

    Learning from Asia, a 2 pronged approach seems sensible. First, expanding financial services and new savings products. Great strides have been made here with the number of bank branches doubling in less than 2 years. Secondly, linked to my earlier point on macroeconomic stability, savers will need to be reassured that their deposits are safe through positive real interest rates. Savers might not want to defer spending today if inflation means those savings are actually worth less tomorrow.

    The fourth common feature of these 13 successful economies was the importance of property rights and letting markets allocate resources. Whilst they varied in the strength and clarity of property rights, in all of them businesses and investors could be confident their investments were secure.

    There was variation in the degree of state intervention. Hong Kong is as famous for its laissez faire approach as China has been for a more hands on role. But even with this hands-on approach, China knew that you can’t just celebrate and foster success. You have to allow failure when sectors and firms are not viable. To avoid wasting precious resources that could be better used elsewhere. And send important signals about what works and what doesn’t. All successful economies have examples of things they have tried but no longer do, for instance even Singapore experimented with import substitution before looking outwards.

    Looking east has already yielded results for Ethiopia. Whilst land remains the property of the state, improving the security of poor farmers’ land tenure through better certification helps give them the incentives to invest in that land.

    The Commission’s final observation was the importance of committed, credible and capable governments. For these high-growth economies, growth and poverty reduction is the overarching political priority. A long term vision that is well communicated is a common feature. Just as important is pragmatism about how this plan will be delivered, learning from mistakes and adjusting course as necessary. The Chinese premier, Deng Xiaoping, described it as ‘crossing the river by feeling for the stones’. A common theme in all 13 countries is a technocratic administration, a focus on delivery and an approach to policymaking that is driven by evidence and learns from mistakes.

    Your late – and widely admired – Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, with whom I had the privilege of several discussions on these issues – set out a clear vision for the country with the PASDEP and subsequently the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP). This, in turn, is about to enter a new phase as the Government charts its course from 2015 with a second GTP.

    These 5 ingredients are a useful way of looking at Ethiopia’s progress and future choices. I would add 1 more, related to the investment climate.

    Whilst the Growth Commission’s observations on prioritising future incomes through investment and the role of property rights are right, they only take us so far. It is also important to think about the way the world looks to those making those important decisions on whether to consume or invest – or often whether to invest in Ethiopia, or somewhere else.

    A key factor here is the investment climate: the rules, procedures and norms that underpin how business is done. For instance, how much it costs to register a business, how long it takes to pay tax and the likelihood of being asked to pay a bribe when you do.

    In many respects the world has changed profoundly since the east Asian ‘miracle’. The increasingly mobile nature of global capital flows and the proliferation of countries competing for the same investors have changed the landscape. Investors (both international and domestic) have more choice in where and how to invest. The process of offshoring labour intensive manufacturing from advanced countries to the Asian Tigers is winding down and competition in these sectors is fierce. We know about that in Europe!

    The complexity of managing and attracting investors to a modern and diversified economy also presents challenges. Trying to tailor arrangements for individual firms and granting them high level political access to help overcome obstacles is only manageable when you have just a few investors. There is a risk that the incentives and tailored measures set up for these first few investors eventually lead to a level of complexity and unpredictability that puts off others. Many east Asian countries found that special deals sooner or later had to be replaced with broad based reforms providing clarity and equity, as well as flexibility.

    Listening to the grumbles of your key investors is always revealing. I am told that the top constraints reported by Chinese investors in Ethiopia are access to finance, access to land, electricity and the time taken and unpredictability in paying taxes. Do customs and trade regulations also rate highly, and does it takes longer to clear customs here than in other places?

    Managing transitions

    And finally, let me say a word about managing the transitions that growth and development will entail.

    Some changes countries face are inherent to the process of growth and rising incomes. Some are external, driven by global factors or environmental change. I want to mention 4 ‘transition issues’, which Ethiopia might want to turn into advantages rather than risks.

    Demographic change is my first example. As with much of Africa, Ethiopia has a young population: 85 million today, set to rise to 150 million by 2050. And the median age of Ethiopians is already only just over 16. This youth bulge has often been called a ‘demographic dividend’, with the majority of the population in work, rather than needing looking after.

    But it also creates pressures for service delivery and pressures on the labour force tomorrow. At some 2 million new entrants to Ethiopia’s labour force every year, that’s more than the total number of people currently employed in the formal private sector.

    I guess I don’t need to tell all you students studying hard and trying to pick up marketable skills what this means. The private sector must take off, particularly in the manufacturing sector. And more people like you need to develop skills in manufacturing and services. To ensure it’s really a ‘demographic dividend’ rather than a problem.

    Second, and linked to both structural change in the economy and demographics, is urbanisation. Ethiopia’s population remains overwhelmingly rural. But urban centres are growing quickly. This great city has more than doubled in size since I first visited. Some smaller cities are growing even faster. Again, no country has advanced to middle income status without significant urbanisation.

    Cities are crucibles for innovation and specialisation. Clusters of similar businesses can emerge, driving competition and creating demand for workers with key skills. Over the last 5 years almost half the fall in poverty in Ethiopia has come in towns and cities or through rural-urban migration.

    But urbanisation also causes upheaval and change. Social networks, service delivery, transport links and issues of environmental sustainability need thinking through. I see signs of this foresight here in Addis Ababa in the construction of the light railway. I am hoping to visit it myself tomorrow. But is infrastructure being developed fast enough?

    There are significant opportunities in infrastructure for Ethiopia to draw on the finance and skills of the private sector. Public Private Partnerships, for example, have proved successful elsewhere in harnessing the private sector to help deliver objectives once the preserve of the public sector. Through the “Private Infrastructure Development Group”, DFID has helped stimulate such investment in other developing countries, using a mix of financial, practical and strategic support. We stand ready to do the same here.

    The third transition I want to highlight is perhaps the most sensitive, but 1 which I know is on people’s minds. As a country grows, and its population gets more educated, wealthy and urbanized, history suggests that ways for that population to express their views openly and freely get ever more important if stability is to be maintained.

    The final transition I want to highlight is increased reliance on domestic revenues and other sources of finance. This will also mean a reduced dependence on aid. Increasing revenues will be essential for protecting the delivery of basic services like education and health care. It will also help Ethiopia build a more comprehensive social safety net. Something which all middle and high income countries committed to social equality need.

    Conclusion

    Ethiopia has come a long way over the past 30 years. I hope to live to see equal – if not greater – levels of progress over the next 30. There will undoubtedly be bumps in the road and new challenges. The flexibility and creativity with which Ethiopia meets these challenges will be a sign of its true strength. Some– like the shift in demographics – can be foreseen and planned for. Others, like global volatility in food markets or oil prices, can’t. Hence the need to build in buffers now through social safety nets and strong macroeconomic policy.

    I want to finish by saying that the UK is in this partnership for the long haul. And as Ethiopia’s development accelerates, our support needs to evolve too. As I said earlier, we have begun our shift towards economic development already. As we get into discussion on what I’ve said today about Ethiopia’s growth and transitions, I hope you will tell me how you think the UK can best support you in this.

    Thank you.

  • David Lidington – 2013 Speech on the European Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, made in The Hague on 16th December 2013.

    Thank you to Open Europe and Teldersstichting for the invitation to speak here in The Hague.

    I am particularly delighted to be here during the 200th anniversary of the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

    It’s an important anniversary for the Netherlands. But, marking as it does the [British] Royal Navy’s rowing ashore of King Willem I, it is also one of many landmarks in UK-Netherlands cooperation.

    I’ll not make any mention of the country from which the Netherlands had just been liberated in 1813 – I don’t want to spark a right of reply from any French diplomats that may be in the audience…

    2014 will be a major year for the European Union.

    In May we have European Parliament elections, and later in the year, a new College of Commissioners.

    There has been a lot of talk about the elections being between pro-and anti-Europeans. I am clear that the choice should not be between the status quo and extremism. Everyone knows that the EU is in need of reform. So this election should be about solutions.

    Today I will consider four key aspects of this agenda:

    – working at the right level

    – addressing democratic legitimacy

    – finding the correct role for the EU’s institutions

    – and fairness for Eurozone ins and outs.

    Reform is not anti-European. Trust in the EU is at a record low. The figures on public support for the EU show it to be what our Prime Minister has repeatedly called “wafer-thin”. In the Netherlands, Eurobarometer reports that 56% of people think the EU is going in the wrong direction.

    We need to reform the EU if it is to regain the trust of its citizens.

    We hear this echoed across Europe…

    Commission President Barroso has said that “We will not go back to the ‘old’ normal, we have to shape a ‘new’ normal”

    Your Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans, has written that “Monnet’s Europe needs reform to fit the 21st century”

    European Parliament President Martin Schulz says “I’m an enthusiastic pro-European, but I think the EU is in a catastrophic situation”

    And in Italy Prime Minister Letta is clear that “we need to reshape the Union”.

    The next year gives us a window of opportunity to shape a new Europe. Many in the UK and the Netherlands already share similar pragmatic beliefs in making the EU work better – on improving democratic legitimacy, heightening respect for subsidiarity, unlocking barriers to growth and having a more focused Commission.

    Let me begin with “working at the right level”

    The phrase which has reverberated the most with me this year has come from the Netherlands:

    “European where necessary, national where possible”.

    In Britain, ‘subsidiarity’ is not a word often reached for in political discourse, despite it being a remedy to a widely recognised problem. So this slogan helpfully translates the principle into words that resonate with the public.

    Encouragingly, we have also seen increasing acknowledgement – at least on paper – that the EU should focus on where it can add most value.

    The Presidents of both the European Council and the Commission have reiterated this; and to be fair there has been some progress.

    In October, for example, the Commission launched REFIT, a programme designed to streamline legislation – an issue close to the hearts of national leaders in the UK, the Netherlands and beyond.

    So it has been especially disappointing to see this principle undermined all too frequently by the Commission focussing on things which are best left to Member States. We all have our favourite examples; I’m not going to list them here. But each new example adds to the view – held by many in Britain – that the EU comes across as too meddlesome, bossy and interfering. This is a genuine problem.

    The exam question is, therefore: How do we ensure that the principle of subsidiarity becomes part of the European mentality and reality?

    First of all, I suggest, we must strive to work for the right balance.

    The Dutch Subsidiarity Review has been especially helpful here, in raising the right questions at the right time. In our Balance of Competences review, too, we are undertaking a deep and balanced analysis of the impact of EU competences. We must ensure the ideas which spring from both these exercises are taken forward.

    This is not about “cherry-picking”, “clawing back”, or any other of the phrases with which people have tried to undermine this approach.

    The goal is rather to create a European Union which is more modest – and more effective.

    Dutch PM Mark Rutte recently said in London that the EU is “a practical partnership…a means to increase prosperity, employment and security” – I think that hits the nail on the head. That means that Europe has to focus on where it can make the biggest difference.

    This can work well in both directions: it acknowledges the adaptability that has been such a consistent strength of the EU.

    As twenty-eight countries working together, we have quite a voice. We can harness that and we have done: on a trade deal with the US, patents, Iran, climate change; on the big issues where action at European level carries more clout than individual countries going solo.

    Equally, the decision on reforming the common fisheries policy – approved by the European Parliament last week – proved that many things need not be done at a European level to be effective. One size does not fit all.

    Ensuring that we have this balance right needs constant attention. Our Task Force on better regulation (and if you’re curious what I mean by “better”, “less” isn’t a bad place to start) is one strand.

    Of course, regulation per se is not A Bad Thing. The days when twenty-eight European countries made twenty-eight different regulations on the same issue are over and thank goodness for that.

    But we will not be in any way shy of making the case for upholding subsidiarity, avoiding competence creep, and making sure the growth we need isn’t stifled by unnecessary regulation.

    My second point is that we need to address the democratic deficit.

    I talked a few minutes ago about the gap between theory and practice in the workings of the European Union.

    This was shown particularly starkly a few weeks ago, when the Commission brushed off the yellow card presented by eleven national parliaments, including those of the Netherlands and the UK, and pressed on with unreformed plans for a European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

    For a start, this was based on an unacceptably narrow and inflexible interpretation of subsidiarity.

    But it was also symptomatic of the disconnection between the EU and its people.

    Let us remember: the yellow card was introduced in the Lisbon Treaty so that national parliaments could play a greater role in EU decision-making.

    Remember, also, that leaders across Europe agree that national parliaments are a main source for democratic legitimacy and accountability. Well, I am afraid that on November 27 democratic parliaments were given a bit of a slap in the face.

    All of us can agree that if a football player is issued a yellow card but fails to heed the words of the ref, a red card surely follows. So that’s one solution, as outlined recently by Foreign Minister Timmermans.

    But let’s not stop there. The Dutch Tweede Kamer report said that national parliaments should have more time to scrutinise Commission proposals and to opine on issues beyond subsidiarity and that it should take fewer reasoned opinions to trigger a yellow card. The so-called “strengthened yellow card” is a proposal we fully support.

    One thing, however, is crucial. Giving national parliaments more say in decision-making works both ways…

    So if people are talking about red cards and yellow cards, why not complete the traffic light and also think about a green card?

    This would allow parliaments to propose new initiatives to the European Commission. This has been thought about in Denmark as well as in the Netherlands, and it is certainly something we would support.

    So there are some solutions here. As with the recent free movement of people discussion, the Commission needs to show through the card system that it is engaging with the genuine and legitimate concerns of national parliaments. Over the next few months I will look to discuss further with my European counterparts how we can take this agenda forward.

    Let me turn now to finding the correct role for the European institutions.

    Institutions matter. They, and the people who set their agendas, underpin what the EU does and also how it does it.

    We must therefore ensure that we have the balance between the institutions right.

    These are clearly set out in the Treaties – but, in practice, some EU institutions are more adept than others in exploiting the grey areas…

    The European Parliament’s power has increased significantly following successive Treaty changes. Some EP members believe that the candidate of the dominant political party should automatically be selected as President of the Commission.

    We, however, do not see the inevitability of this linkage and expect the European Council to assess the merits of all candidates including, but not limited to, those endorsed by the European political parties.

    The Council must ensure that the Treaties are upheld and that the institutions maintain the roles accorded by the Treaties, including in the appointment of Commission President. We regard this as vital to maintaining the independence of the Commission, and its accountability to both co-legislators.

    We also believe that the European Council should be more active in setting out the strategic direction for the Commission. It is not enough to set out goals and conclusions. You also need to monitor them to ensure that the priorities European leaders have agreed are actually implemented. The General Affairs Council is well placed to monitor progress and ensure that the objectives agreed by EU Heads of State are actually delivered.

    I read Frans Timmermans’ article setting out the idea of a more focussed Commission with interest. We agree there are areas where the Commission just doesn’t need to get involved. And we will explore precisely how the Commission’s structure can change to make it sharper and more effective. Certainly, a European Governance Manifesto is an approach we welcome.

    My final point is that we must protect the integrity of the Single Market, as well as the “rights” of Eurozone-outs as the Eurozone integrates.

    Wherever I go, I get a lot of sympathy for our reform agenda. But it’s fair to say I also hear voices clearly wishing this would all go away.

    I’m pretty blunt with them. It wasn’t the UK that changed this game. The fact that we seek a fair set of structures is due in no small part to developments in the Eurozone and what that has meant for the EU. It is clear to me that the Eurozone needs to have the right governance and structures in place to address its current challenges. We are merely seeking pragmatic solutions to problems.

    This is a hugely complicated issue and I can’t pretend we have all the answers. One thing which is clear is that we can’t tell you what to do.

    However, I won’t lie about our own interests, and those of other Eurozone-outs.

    We need any new arrangements to work fairly – for those outside the Eurozone as well as for those within it. This means working closely with partners inside and outside the Eurozone to find solutions which work.

    We achieved this in the first element of banking union through the double majority voting system and negotiations are ongoing as we speak on the second element. We will continue to work creatively with all EU partners to ensure the interests of the EU-28 are upheld.

    We see our case for reform as a positive one. The measures I have outlined – working at the right level, addressing democratic legitimacy, finding the correct role for the EU’s institutions, and making sure that the system is fair for all 28 Member States – will, I believe, help shape the better Europe we all need.

    Although in the UK and the Netherlands we are working closely on reform, we are not lone crusaders. Leading figures across Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament are suggesting pragmatic approaches to finding solutions. For us in the UK, with David Cameron’s commitment to a referendum in 2017, – as for the whole of Europe – now is the time for the EU to demonstrate that it is determined to work for and with the will of its citizens.

    I will finish with a word on Treaty change. I know that there are many (in the political classes at least) who are worried about the prospect of Treaty change. To them I say two things.

    First, that what we are primarily interested in is results. Many of the reforms that we are proposing can be achieved without Treaty change. At the same time the needed changes to the Institutions should rightly be embedded in the Treaties and we are merely reflecting the reality of the scale of changes underway in the Eurozone – look for instance at the debate around banking union over the past couple of weeks.

    Second, I think fears about Treaty change are really fears about referenda. I understand those fears. But in the UK it is clear that support for EU membership is so wafer thin that it will only be resolved through that kind of public decision. So while having the debate may be scary for some, it is the responsible thing to do. I would be far more worried about the consequences of ignoring the reality than I am about facing up to it.

    Next year, as I said, we have a window of opportunity to get the right structures in place for the European Union. We must not miss such a chance.

    We are not apologetic about trying to make the EU work better.

  • David Lidington – 2013 Speech on Scottish Independence

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, at Edinburgh on 28th June 2013.

    Thank you for that kind introduction. It is great to be back in Edinburgh.

    I have spent the day so far meeting members of the Scottish Parliament, and representatives of Edinburgh’s business and academic communities. And always, the discussion has been on what independence would mean for people and businesses in Scotland.

    With less than 450 days to go until the referendum, it is right that the focus should shift from rhetoric to reality, and that people throughout Scotland should take a good hard look at what the options mean for them. Scotland is faced with a choice between staying within the UK, or leaving and going it alone.

    As Minister for Europe, I from time to time meet people who remember the referendum campaigns of the 1970s, both on Scotland and on the European Union. And people ask why we have these issues have been opened up once more. But my own view is that there is no point in ignoring questions of such magnitude where they remain unresolved. People here in Scotland will make their decision on 18 September next year.

    This is democracy in action, and I believe that it is right that people should have the opportunity to decide their own future. But I don’t agree that if the vote here for independence, then “everything will be much the same on Day One… only better”. This, to me, is a casual and complacent assertion that underestimates the size of the task involved and the associated costs.

    So rather than making sweeping statements and counter-claims, I have six straightforward questions. And I would ask you to consider whether you think you have heard credible answers to these questions so far in this debate. The first is what happens with EU membership if Scotland becomes independent? There is no precedent for the break-up of an existing member of the European Union, so no one knows for certain. But Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, who is surely an authoritative voice on this issue, has said that an independent Scotland would be regarded as a new country seeking accession to the European Union for the first time.

    Independent legal opinion sought and published by the UK Government says that the remaining nations of the United Kingdom would be seen as the continuing state, retaining the UK’s international rights and privileges and its EU membership. In the face of that evidence, the Scottish Government has now admitted that membership would not be automatic and that negotiation would be required. The task facing an independent Scottish Government would then be to win over 28 member states, each of which would have a veto. This includes those countries that are anxious about the unity of their own nations, cautious about setting precedents and with little motivation to make the journey smooth for Scotland.

    The second question is what would happen to the pound? Under the terms of the EU treaties, all new EU member states are expected to make the legal and political commitment to adopt the Single Currency. The United Kingdom and Denmark have the right to keep its own currency, but Mr. Barroso said in November that no new member states would be allowed to opt out. The Scottish Government knows that the pound is popular, but recent experience has shown that being in a currency union without other kinds of integration is less than straightforward. There is no guarantee that the UK and Scotland would be able to come to an agreement on a currency union. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said he thinks it’s unlikely that it could be made to work. And even if it could be agreed, it would require a newly independent Scottish state to accept significant limits on its economic sovereignty and to submit its budgetary plans to Westminster for approval.

    The third question relates to Schengen, the agreement that abolished passport and immigration controls for almost all the EU member states. Would an independent Scotland join? As defined in the Treaties, all countries seeking accession to the EU are expected to join the Schengen area. There is no automatic right to opt-out, and no legal grounds to suggest that membership is anything other than obligatory. If an independent Scotland were to join Schengen, then control of its borders would be out-sourced to Europe’s periphery. The one border that Scotland would have to secure would be that with England, drawing a line between Scottish businesses and their main trading partners.

    The option that is favoured by the Scottish Government – to remain in a Common Travel Area with the UK and Ireland – is not on offer to new member states. It would be a significant new opt-out demand that would expend considerable negotiating capital with no certainty of success and which would, again, require the unanimous agreement of each Member State.

    The fourth question is what would happen to the payments being made to the EU budget if Scotland became independent? Now the Scottish Government itself has said that an independent Scotland would be a net contributor to the European Union. But suggestions that Scotland would retain its share of the UK’s rebate appear to stand on very shaky ground. At the EU budget negotiations in February, the UK was able to defend its rebate but this was a hard-fought fight against the entrenched interests of other member states.Legal opinion received by the UK Government is clear that an independent Scotland would not get a share of the UK rebate. Scotland would have to negotiate such arrangements from scratch and it would be very difficult to secure any similar deal.

    So if a new independent Scottish state were let into the EU, the default expectation must be that Scottish taxpayers would see their payments to the EU rise significantly.

    The fifth question is who will stand up for Scotland’s interests in Europe when it comes to negotiations on financial service or energy or fisheries or agriculture? The Scottish Government’s position is that this can only be done by those who care for Scotland alone. Their assumption is that an independent Scotland would negotiate as a small state, with its bargaining power amplified by a flood of goodwill.

    Now it’s true that the UK Government now negotiates on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. And by doing so, it brings to the table its considerable weight within the EU and experience and its extensive diplomatic network.

    We have a track record of using our position as one of Europe’s biggest economies; with the third largest population; membership of the UN Security Council, G7, G8 and G20; and 40 years of forging alliances to fight for all the UK’s interests in Europe. We also have one of the most inclusive arrangements anywhere in the EU when it comes to devolved administrations participating in the making of decisions. Scotland has benefited from the UK’s strong voice in Europe. UK ministers – not least the Prime Minister – have forgone sleep and hotel beds, negotiating hard through the early hours. And they have delivered on issue after issue.

    On the EU budget, we secured the first ever cut in the long-term budget, which will benefit taxpayers in every part of the United Kingdom. On financial services, we have secured safeguards for British firms – in Edinburgh as much as London – on the Single Supervisory Mechanism and on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive. On fisheries, we achieved a deal on discards that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation welcomed as a “practical plan”. The Offshore Health and Safety Directive, agreed shortly before the 25th anniversary of Piper Alpha, the world’s worst offshore disaster, won praise from Oil & Gas UK. And on Tuesday morning in Luxemburg, I bumped into Environment Secretary Owen Paterson – who was somewhat bleary eyed – a third of the way through gruelling negotiations on reform to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

    The mandate that Owen Paterson helped to secure this week is a breakthrough that offers greater clarity and certainty to Scottish farmers, and a reassurance that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament will have the freedom to deliver a common agricultural policy here tailored to the needs and circumstances of people in Scotland. And last night – again in the early hours – the Financial Secretary to the Treasury Greg Clark secured a deal on resolving troubled banks that will protect taxpayers around Europe. When it comes to negotiations, in general what we find is that small nations with similar interests to our own look to the UK to take the lead.

    And in the heat of a debate in which national interests are at stake, you don’t want to be relying on just goodwill in the corridors of Brussels. It’s a commodity particularly in the small hours of the morning are in very short supply.

    My sixth question is about the UK’s security and its wider role in the world. As the Minister with responsibility for NATO, I am taking a close interest in how the defence and security elements of the debate are unfolding. You will have seen the latest reports from independent experts on the defence capability of an independent Scotland. Are you genuinely confident about the answers that the Scottish Government has given on NATO membership? NATO membership is not automatic. It is a matter for the North Atlantic Council to determine, as has been pointed out by NATO itself.

    And even though the SNP has reluctantly changed its view on membership, the response from NATO is that an independent Scotland would still need to apply. Outside experts, such as the Scotland Institute, have said that the SNP position assumes automatic entry and imposes conditionality on NATO. And the Scottish Government has to accept that NATO membership is not a done deal. Every NATO member, whether it possesses nuclear weapons or not, needs to sign up to the Strategic Concept which states in terms that NATO will be a nuclear alliance for as long as these weapons exist.

    And this is not something that can be fudged or brushed under the carpet.

    Those are my questions. I don’t pretend to be dispassionate about the answers. I care a great deal about the choice that people in Scotland will make. I also don’t want to suggest that independence only cuts one way. I am quite clear that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, it would be a loss for all sides.

    Both Scotland and the UK would be diminished – in our global standing, in our future economic prospects and by erecting barriers that would cut across the long-standing ties of friendship and family between us.

    So I want to use the remainder of this speech to set out the positive case for what we can achieve in Europe if we stay together. First let me knock down the suggestion that the only way Scotland can remain a member of the EU is if it votes for independence. That is just not true. In January, the Prime Minister set out clearly his vision for Europe – a Europe that is more competitive, more flexible, more open and more democratically accountable. His goal is to reform the EU into a body in which the British people will feel comfortable, and then to hold a vote in which we settle the question of Britain’s membership once and for all – a vote in which the Prime Minister made clear, he wants to campaign, heart and soul, to remain in the EU.

    The background to the Prime Minister’s speech was five years of undeniably tough times in Europe. The speech has sparked a major debate about Europe’s future, and this is a debate that we are helping to shape. The Eurozone has been in an extended recession. One in four young people is unemployed. Countries across Europe have had to slash spending, and not just in southern Europe. Sweden is looking at cutting pensions and sickness benefits, as is Denmark. Finland is under pressure to raise the pension age.

    In that European context, Britain has been holding its own. We have an economy that is starting to recover. We have remained attractive for investors. UN figures released this week showed that we have held onto our position as number one in Europe for foreign direct investment, which rose by 22% last year at a time when investment worldwide fell by 18%. And businesses created 1.3 million private sector jobs across the UK since 2010. Our employment rate is above the EU and Eurozone average, and higher even than the employment rate in the United States.

    But we urgently need to tackle competitiveness in Europe because the EU is central to our future prosperity. It is forecast to be our main market for the next ten to fifteen years.Now the Scotch Whisky Association can tell you that the French drink more Scotch in a month than they do cognac in a year. But Europe matters for other Scottish exports too: seafood, agricultural products; wind and wave technology; machinery; equipment; oil and gas; and as a source of students for Scotland’s top universities.

    And sometimes hidden amidst the gloom in the world’s biggest marketplace, the EU, are opportunities for Scottish firms. This year’s Global Connections Survey showed that Scottish exports to the EU rose by 14.7% in 2011. Take a firm like Jaggy Nettle from the Borders, which got a grant from the UK Government to go to Milan Fashion Week, and now sells its clothes in luxury boutiques alongside labels like Prada.Europe is also the source of about half the UK’s investment stock. Last year, Spain’s Gamesa chose the port of Leith for a new wind turbine manufacturing plant in an investment worth £125m, and France’s Chanel bought up the Barrie Knitwear cashmere mill in the Scottish borders.

    But while Europe remains our biggest market place, we live in a world that is changing rapidly. In China, there are now over 160 cities with populations of more than one million people. They include Edinburgh’s twin city of Xi’an and Glasgow’s twin city of Dalian. There are twice as many people living in these two cities alone as there are in the whole of Scotland. UN figures released this month forecast that the global middle class will number over three billion by the end of the decade, over half of whom will be in Asia.

    This is an opportunity for all of us as it’s the global middle class that wants the exports that UK firms produce. Working together, our EU membership is helping us to win better terms for trade across the world in the developed and emerging economies alike. We need to focus on this challenge. We cannot afford to stand still.

    And we are winning support from other member states because they can see that the reforms we are seeking benefit all of Europe and not just the United Kingdom alone. To take a single example, at the G8 summit in Lough Erne this month, we helped to launch negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the world’s biggest ever trade deal. The benefit to the UK from this deal between the EU and the United States would be up to £10 billion a year, the equivalent of £380 per family in the UK.

    For Europe, the figure is £100 billion and for the US £80 billion. Success with this trade and investment partnership will bring concrete benefits for businesses in Scotland, for which the US is the largest international export market – the destination for £3.5 billion of goods and services every year.

    The Wall Street Journal said the deal was, and I quote, “a major political coup” for the UK, but recognised too the effort that had gone into these talks. It noted: “They didn’t come about by accident: they were the result of months of diplomatic effort by British officials”. I would add by British Ministers too, especially the Prime Minister who has worked hand in hand with Angela Merkel in pushing for the deal with other European countries.

    In summary, I would like to ask each and every one of you to weigh up the options very carefully ahead of a referendum. We know that a vote for independence is a vote for uncertainty, with its attendant risks and costs. And we know that no one is forcing the Scottish people to go down this path. I can say in all sincerity that people throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland want our centuries-old Union to continue. And when it comes down to it, the vote next September will have the greatest impact on Scotland’s young people, the majority of whom want to stay in the UK according to the most recent polls.

    Independence would close off an avenue of opportunity for those who are self-confident enough to use the double identity they have as British and Scottish to make their way in the world – as countless Scots have done before them. Some will have ambitions that lie mainly or wholly in Scotland, but there will be others that want to test themselves against a wider field.

    …Politicians who could measure their stature against Disraeli, Lloyd George or Keir Hardie, with the ability to inspire and lead 63 million British people. I am reminded here of Gordon Brown, an MP from a Scottish constituency, of others with a Scottish heritage such as Tony Blair and Harold Macmillan, who led the whole of the United Kingdom.

    …Diplomats who want to make their careers in a diplomatic network with 267 posts in 154 countries and twelve territories worldwide.

    …Soldiers, sailors and aviators who could command the world’s finest military in operational missions around the world.

    …Scottish economists who want to tackle global poverty via the G8, the G20 or the world’s top economic bodies.

    …Businessmen and women who may well be based in Edinburgh or Inverness, but who are equally at home in London or Cardiff, and who can call on UK Trade & Investment’s export support in more than 100 markets.

    …And athletes who – after the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow next year will want to represent Team GB at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

    By working together, we can provide that support and help the next generation to prosper.

    My belief is that the people of Scotland should have the opportunity to have the best of both worlds. We should help each other out as family and friends do.

    That is our common purpose within the UK, and that is what should be our joint endeavour over the coming years.

    Thank you very much indeed.